How to win a debate with an anti-gunner

[skidmark]

Obviously.

There is, however, something to be said for taking the path of least resistance, namely, fence sitters. They are not that hard to find, most folks are fence sitters in my experience. A 2A friendly professor? A unicorn sighting in the very vast majority of ivory towers.

Did someone say "fence sitters"?

http://www.guns.com/2015/04/23/how-do-we-get-2nd-amendment-agnostics-to-buy-in-to-gun-rights/

We know the worth of firearms. Beyond fun – yes, I went there – they offer deterrent value, peace of mind, and as illustrated by the new television series “The Last Man on Earth“, make great universal keys.

But there are those who remain largely in the dark on firearms.

One constituency is afflicted with the kind of willed ignorance that has seen fit to put Obama in the oval office (twice, no less). Lost causes in search of one, these hoplophobes are best left alone or subject to limiting voting rights.

But there is another constituency that perhaps deserves some consideration.

These are the “neither here, nor there” Americans, people who just don’t feel particularly invested in gun ownership or Second Amendment rights. The prospect of formally familiarizing themselves with firearms, unfortunately, just doesn’t fall high on their personal priorities lists, probably because they are largely insulated from the debate and don’t perceive themselves as having a dog in the fight.

That they are ignorant on the issues that concern us – and them – does not mean they are necessarily stupid. If they are not exactly victims of the same kind of pernicious indoctrinations that find children carrying out executions on behalf of ISIS, they are at least subject to similar kinds of limiting agents courtesy of the media to which they are exposed.

But if they are not exactly for or against us, they might be swayed by our ambassadorship.

stay safe.

 

[skidmark]

. A 2A friendly professor? A unicorn sighting in the very vast majority of ivory towers.

The author is only married to a professor.

All of that changed one evening when my wife dragged me, like a chained bear, to a cocktail party with her colleagues. She teaches at one of those esteemed universities that celebrates diversity, but where every staff member seems to have the same politics. So there I was in a room full of her highly educated friends who don’t know the first thing about ballistics or how to clean their own game. For my wife’s sake, I tried to fade into the background, but apparently all the hours I’ve spent concealed in trees hunting deer didn’t help in the cocktail scene.

Now that in itself is admittedly a strange relationship, but there are vstories of even weirder pairings.

stay safe.

 

[utbagpiper]

Please do not patronize me on the associated benefits of OCing or the mission of OCDO.

There is no need for a hostile response.

I suspect very few of us go looking for opportunities to proselyte on RKBA. But especially when OCing, many opportunities present themselves and in most cases a response more civil than "bugger off" may be warranted. Something about being armed and polite comes to my mind.

But whatever works for you.

Charles

 

[skidmark]

There is no need for a hostile response.

.

Charles

So, Charles, why do you feel that hostile responses are problematic? Why would disallowing hostile answers make you feel better? How would you feel if you were in a public place instead of a private forum and someone started making hostile responses? What makes you feel so cruel towards those who make hostile responses?

stay safe.

 

[solus]

skid, tis piper's ego which perceives the slight, any slight whatsoever, is immediately translated in his mind as a challenge and therefore as hostile and a personal attack to his persona...

tis a horrible thing to waste...

ipse

 

[SW40VE-OC]

Wondering if the tactics discussed in this thread work with spouses also. My personal OC seems to bother my wife, and she is of the opinion that I will "draw unwanted attention". I do not have a CCW permit yet, so OC is all I can do. I'm gaining confidence in my OC, but how do I get my wife to be confident also? She is not one that readily accepts sarcastic comments, even if directed towards others and away from her. For others that have experienced something like I describe, any strategy ideas to " win her over"?

 

[marshaul]

First of all, do you in fact receive a lot of attention?

It's not unheard of -- some OCers do seem to attract attention -- but most of us find that "it will only draw attention" is an assumption ungrounded in empiricism. I know that I hardly get any attention, and when I do it's almost always a gun guy with something positive to say (or a question about my 1911).

So, if you're new to OCing, the first thing I would do is suggest you simply keep at it, and those you associate with will begin to see firsthand that, for most folks, it doesn't change much other than their ability to defend themselves should it ever be required.

If you really do get a lot of attention after you become a confidant, comfortable OCer, I'd revisit the question.

 

[SW40VE-OC]

Thanks marshaul. I say attention, but its almost more like "noticed". Is there a difference? I'm not sure. There are other OCers in N. NV, but I thinks its still rather uncommon.
I will continue to OC when I can in hope that my wife sees firsthand that nothing different happens when I have it. She understands what my sidearm is for, and the only time I will use it is to defend myself/her/our kids. I think it is that she watches A LOT of TV and just follows along with the crowd on " normal reaction".

Hope all that makes sense. Hard to describe some emotions and feelings when typing instead of speaking.

 

[skidmark]

@solus - someone leaves a chain laying about and I'm gonna yank it.:uhoh:

@SW40VE-OC - Sometimes it depends on how much SWMBO is bothered and how she expresses that. I am guessing that so far she has not told you "I am not going out with you if you are going to wear that!" If that's the case you have some room to work with.

Check the Nevada forum - there are OC social events you could take her to. Let her talk with the other W/GFWMBOs

stay safe.

 

[OC for ME]

There is no need for a hostile response.

I suspect very few of us go looking for opportunities to proselyte on RKBA. But especially when OCing, many opportunities present themselves and in most cases a response more civil than "bugger off" may be warranted. Something about being armed and polite comes to my mind.

But whatever works for you.

Charles

Backhanded insults are, apparently, very appealing to you. Any further interactions with you, on my part, is counterproductive.

Did someone say "fence sitters"?

http://www.guns.com/2015/04/23/how-do-we-get-2nd-amendment-agnostics-to-buy-in-to-gun-rights/

stay safe.

skid, did you read the title of this thread?

But if they are not exactly for or against us, they might be swayed by our ambassadorship.

My reference to fence sitters was explicitly related to a post from another member. I defined what a fence sitter is in my view.

It appears that my definition of what a anti-gunner is may not be aligned with your definition, or other folks' definition. Citizens who are not exactly for or against us, and fence sitters, seem to have been lumped into the anti-gunner demographic. No biggie.

 

[Superlite27]

Each of us has our own style of preferred argument.

As with any "contest", be it a sporting event, intellectual discussion, or straight out war, "contest" assumes a basic "A vs. B" format.

In this format, strategy is implied.

As we each have our own preferred style, we each have our prefferred strategies and tactics for "winning". Even our definition of "winning" may be different. Some of us wish to "win over the enemy" while others simply seek to humiliate. Some may seek a reaction, i.e. "trolling". There are as many goals sought in a verbal contest or "argument" as there are styles of argumentation.

I agree with the "persuader" in that the goal of "winning" should be to convert an opponent to our mode of belief, however, there are some opponents I can analyze and identify as "WILL NOT EVER BE CONVINCED". Arguments with these intractable foes, although puerile, can be very enjoyable in a childish manner. Hence: Peurile. There are two very starkly contrasted definitions of "winning" for each of these two groups. I seek to prod the "fence sitters" towards my way of thinking. A person who develops a healthy attitude of simply questioning the validity of the anti-gun argument after a debate counts as a "win", as far as I'm concerned. The "dyed in the wool" gun control fanatic will never develop this attitude, therefore, the more I can simply humiliate this S#!TBAG, the better. Peurile, but fun. Call me an anti-gunner troll. That's fine. Childish, but true.

My personal method of argument is crafted, as all "strategies" should be. Cold hard logical facts seem to be a widely supported method. This may work for some, but as illustrated by the OP, many times "cold, hard facts" just don't penetrate an arbitrary, emotionally based opponent.

Anti-gunners won't be bothered by your useless "truth". What good is that?

It doesn't make them "FEEL" any better.

Feelings don't change quantifiable reality?

Well, phooooey on that! Who cares about your "reality" mumbo-jumbo? It's FEELINGS that count, remember?

So, I find the "cold, hard facts" based argument to be pointless. You cannot tactically "win" a contest using facts when your opponent DOES NOT CARE about facts. It becomes a verbal version of "Calvin Ball". Your "rules" do not apply. "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

Therefore, I have developed my own personal "style" that I believe is effective against both of my "intended targets".

I love to ask "unanswerable" questions based on my opponent's own argument.

I define an "unanswerable question" as a question where the only logical conclusion is one that supports my argument and disredits my opponent's. The more glaringly OBVIOUS the only possible answer is, the better I like it.

FOR EXAMPLE:

I often hear the "Guns are bad! Only police officers should carry them." argument. I absolutely LOVE encountering this statement from an opponent. It allows me to ask why the police carry the darned things if guns are "bad".

"Well, the police need them for their protection!".

I will whittle away at this discrepancy until the complete dichotomy of why "guns are bad for human beings to defend themselves, but good for human beings to defend themselves" splits itself open.

It usually comes when my opponent points out how carrying a firearm is so dangerous because it can be taken away and used against me.

I then get them to double down on the entire "The criminals will only take it away from you". I get them to write this in stone. REINFORCE THIS IDEA as much as possible. Then....

I ask them, "Now, does this count when I'm in uniform, or just when I'm dressed in plain clothes?".

WATCH THE GEARS TURN.

But.....but......those guns are GOOD for cops, right? I thought cops were the only ones they were good for? Guns were a liability a moment ago. Now they're good? Did I suddenly become a different human being? Somehow, between the last sentence and this one, the gun that was so dangerous for me to have, instantly transformed into something dangerous for me to be without.

So, my opponent will inevitably begin stammering about how it's perfectly fine for me to carry. (They still don't grasp the mental disconnect they just experienced.)

So I'll get them to reinforce that seeing me carry a gun no longer bothers them.

"Are you sure you don't mind me carrying?"

Of course they don't. Only cops should have guns. I'm a cop, so they're suddenly perfectly fine with it. No problem, at all.



Oh, I never said "I was a cop.". I'm not a police officer. I just asked if they'd have a problem with me carrying while I'm "in uniform". I didn't say "a police officer's uniform".

Suddenly, that mental disconnect becomes the elephant in the room.

I guess they're no longer perfectly fine with it.

How is it that a gun keeps switching between "bad" and "good" without any change in the human being posessing it based solely upon "only police should have guns"?

Am I more safe, or less safe with a firearm?

Which is it?

They cannot offer a definitive answer when they're unsure of my employment. Keeping my occupation vaguely insinuated, but never completely affirmed in their mind beautifully illustrates this mental disconnect. When someone offers you a false dichotomy, blur the line between the false division and it becomes glaringly obvious when they can't identify the seperation of something that isn't seperate.

Hopefully, in the mind of the "fence sitter" it dispells, or at least helps to lessen the attractiveness of the "only the police should have guns" argument. It may cause someone who simply "feels" guns are bad to question that argument. "Well....maybe.......".

Someone committed, heart and soul, to the anti-gun cause will be caught in their own dilemma when their unassailable argument causes me to miraculously transpose from demon, to angel, back to demon......ang.......dem.........uhhhhhhhh? Hmmmm.

What a mental pickle they argued themselves into.

It's all in one's chosen tactic. What works for others might not for some. I'm happy having a diverse commmunity of individuals who employ a wide variety of argument strategies. A "tossed salad", if you will. This diversity is our strength, not the validity of each individual's style.

Now....go pick a (verbal) fight.

 

[skidmark]

Backhanded insults are, apparently, very appealing to you. Any further interactions with you, on my part, is counterproductive.

skid, did you read the title of this thread?

My reference to fence sitters was explicitly related to a post from another member. I defined what a fence sitter is in my view.

It appears that my definition of what a anti-gunner is may not be aligned with your definition, or other folks' definition. Citizens who are not exactly for or against us, and fence sitters, seem to have been lumped into the anti-gunner demographic. No biggie.

As the OP of this thread, why would I want to read the title?

But thanks for asking, bless your heart.

stay safe.

 

[utbagpiper]

So, Charles, why do you feel that hostile responses are problematic? Why would disallowing hostile answers make you feel better? How would you feel if you were in a public place instead of a private forum and someone started making hostile responses? What makes you feel so cruel towards those who make hostile responses?

 

[skidmark]

Bazinga!

stay safe.